Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Nov;16(6):550-5.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2012.12.003. Epub 2013 Jan 14.

Monitoring fitness, fatigue and running performance during a pre-season training camp in elite football players

Affiliations

Monitoring fitness, fatigue and running performance during a pre-season training camp in elite football players

M Buchheit et al. J Sci Med Sport. 2013 Nov.

Abstract

Objectives: To examine the usefulness of selected physiological and perceptual measures to monitor fitness, fatigue and running performance during a pre-season, 2-week training camp in eighteen professional Australian Rules Football players (21.9±2.0 years).

Design: Observational.

Methods: Training load, perceived ratings of wellness (e.g., fatigue, sleep quality) and salivary cortisol were collected daily. Submaximal exercise heart rate (HRex) and a vagal-related heart rate variability index (LnSD1) were also collected at the start of each training session. Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery level 2 test (Yo-YoIR2, assessed pre-, mid- and post-camp, temperate conditions) and high-speed running distance during standardized drills (HSR, >14.4 km h(-1), 4 times throughout, outdoor) were used as performance measures.

Results: There were significant (P<0.001 for all) day-to-day variations in training load (coefficient of variation, CV: 66%), wellness measures (6-18%), HRex (3.3%), LnSD1 (19.0%), but not cortisol (20.0%, P=0.60). While the overall wellness (+0.06, 90% CL (-0.14; 0.02) AU day(-1)) did not change substantially throughout the camp, HRex decreased (-0.51 (-0.58; -0.45)% day(-1)), and cortisol (+0.31 (0.06; 0.57) nmol L(-1)day(-1)), LnSD1 (+0.1 (0.04; 0.06) ms day(-1)), Yo-YoIR2 performance (+23.7 (20.8; 26.6) m day(-1), P<0.001), and HSR (+4.1 (1.5; 6.6) m day(-1), P<0.001) increased. Day-to-day ΔHRex (r=0.80, 90% CL (0.75; 0.85)), ΔLnSD1 (0.51 (r=0.40; 0.62)) and all wellness measures (0.28 (-0.39; -0.17)<r<0.25 (0.14; 0.36)) were related to Δtraining load. There was however no clear relationship between Δcortisol and Δtraining load. ΔYo-YoIR2 was correlated with ΔHRex (r=0.88 (0.84; 0.92)), ΔLnSD1 (r=0.78 (0.67; 0.89)), Δwellness (r=0.58 (0.41; 0.75), but not Δcortisol. ΔHSR was correlated with ΔHRex (r = -0.27 (-0.48; -0.06)) and Δwellness (r=0.65 (0.49; 0.81)), but neither with ΔLnSD1 nor Δcortisol.

Conclusions: Training load, HRex and wellness measures are the best simple measures for monitoring training responses to an intensified training camp; cortisol post-exercise and LnSD1 did not show practical efficacy here.

Keywords: GPS; Heart rate variability; High-intensity intermittent running performance; Psychometric measures; Saliva cortisol; Standardized drills.

PubMed Disclaimer

LinkOut - more resources